18th March 2012
Handing over power to “experts” is a recipe for early death
Just one more extract from Virapen's book for now. This extract (below) illustrates the consequences of incentives created by regulatory capture in the drug industry.
Drug companies have PROMOTED laws that require them to "pass" drug tests prescribed by government regulators. They LOVE such laws, for these laws keep out competition, and make it easier to make billions of dollars from worthless drugs.
Regulators have presumably set "stringent" tests to protect us, the FOOLISH consumer (everyone thinks we are fools, so they must "protect" us).
But what has happened, in this process, is that all SIX BILLION of us on this planet have handed over OUR INNATE power to choose what we put into our mouth or body to a handful of "experts" such as FDA/TDA, etc.
Note that these people are NEVER ACCOUNTABLE. I've never heard of a single drug regulator being hung to death for (a) drugs approved which then went on to kill thousands of people, (b) drugs blocked which could have cured millions of people.
(click for larger image)
It is clear that we have been taken for the suckers we are! We are surely fools to have allowed this to happen, handing over our power of choice to governments which then have created laws that effectively protect (a) BIG DRUG COMPANIES and (b) BIG DRUG REGULATORS from any accountability.
This has become a huge money-making racket for (a) drug companies, (b) regulators and (c) corrupt politicians.
These power-brokers have ended up (literally) dancing over our dead bodies. We don't need government to give PRIOR "approval" of drugs. We need government to insist on FULL disclosure of drug effects, and to PUNISH those who ply dangerous drugs and don't disclose the risks of their drugs.
Let us revert to the system of justice, and abandon this SICK system of "consumer protection".
All drug authorities, e.g. FDA, need to be shut down.
At the next level, it was all about getting scientific physicians to write positive reports, in medical journals, for example.
These researchers were so-called opinion maker/leaders whom we had carefully selected and gotten competently on our side. Not by convincing them of the superior quality of our products. No, we’d paid them for it.
One of these opinion maker/leaders, for example, a specialist in pain therapy who worked for the health board in Sweden, got a set wage from us for supposedly advising us, looking through our brochures and training reps. His niche, an institution, had already been set up years ago, when I became the boss in Sweden. But I never saw him, he had no office and his name was never in the minutes of the meetings. He was only activated if there was bad press about us and our products. Unexpected side effects, impure substances, ailing patients; that was bad press. He promptly wrote positive articles about us in medical journals – the medical fraternity was pacified and could continue to receive our reps unreservedly, as they had always done. He did just that for Distalgesic® (active ingredient: dextropoxyphene), a pain killer, an opioid that was used massively, at that time. There were reports in the media about suicide in connection with the drug. That was a nuisance for me, as general manager. It was time to activate my specialist for pain therapy. In one of the weekly medical journals he wrote something that appeared to help – “It’s not that bad,” etc. The daily press copied the article from the medical press and the world was on course again. Sure enough, the commotion died down. I was pleased that daily business could continue.
But the payment for this assignment was particularly strenuous. Eli Lilly sent me to Seattle to a scientific conference about combating pain, to see to this. I flew there with an envelope in my jacket pocket. During the conference recess, I went to the bar in the lobby of this exquisite hotel. I was expecting my specialist for pain therapy who was to come and meet me at the bar. He arrived, and I greeted him. I told him that I had an envelope for him. He blushed a little, but maybe it was just because it was warm now at the crowded bar, I laughed, he laughed and then generously asked me if I wanted something to drink. I agreed and while we were waiting for our drinks, I passed him the envelope with the check.
“That’s for you,” I said.
“Thanks,” he replied calmly, as if I had passed him a small bowl of peanuts. But we weren’t dealing with just “peanuts” here.
Why, of all things, did I have to go to Seattle to give him this envelope? Because of the tax. Of course this money was accounted for at Eli Lilly. I assume under “research funds”. In some way or the other, this was correct. After all, the man was a scientist, and, in the United States, resources for my pain-therapy specialist helped us pay less tax.
The companies I worked for are not isolated cases. I was not an isolated case. The recipients of generous donations were not isolated cases. The word bribery suggests an exceptional circumstance, yet the practice, I described above, is part of daily routine in the pharmaceutical industry.